Interventions for hyperhidrosis in secondary care : a systematic review and value-of-information analysis

Background: Hyperhidrosis is uncontrollable excessive sweating that occurs at rest, regardless of temperature. The symptoms of hyperhidrosis can significantly affect quality of life. The management of hyperhidrosis is uncertain and variable. Objective: To establish the expected value of undertaking additional research to determine the most effective interventions for the management of refractory primary hyperhidrosis in secondary care. Methods: A systematic review and economic model, including a value-of-information (VOI) analysis. Treatments to be prescribed by dermatologists and minor surgical treatments for hyperhidrosis of the hands, feet and axillae were reviewed; as endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy (ETS) is incontestably an end-of-line treatment, it was not reviewed further. Fifteen databases (e.g. CENTRAL, PubMed and PsycINFO), conference proceedings and trial registers were searched from inception to July 2016. Systematic review methods were followed. Pairwise meta-analyses were conducted for comparisons between botulinum toxin (BTX) injections and placebo for axillary hyperhidrosis, but otherwise, owing to evidence limitations, data were synthesised narratively. A decision-analytic model assessed the cost-effectiveness and VOI of five treatments (iontophoresis, medication, BTX, curettage, ETS) in 64 different sequences for axillary hyperhidrosis only. Results and conclusions: Fifty studies were included in the effectiveness review: 32 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 17 non-RCTs and one large prospective case series. Most studies were small, rated as having a high risk of bias and poorly reported. The interventions assessed in the review were iontophoresis, BTX, anticholinergic medications, curettage and newer energy-based technologies that damage the sweat gland (e.g. laser, microwave). There is moderate-quality evidence of a large statistically significant effect of BTX on axillary hyperhidrosis symptoms, compared with placebo. There was weak but consistent evidence for iontophoresis for palmar hyperhidrosis. Evidence for other interventions was of low or very low quality. For axillary hyperhidrosis cost-effectiveness results indicated that iontophoresis, BTX, medication, curettage and ETS was the most cost-effective sequence (probability 0.8), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9304 per quality-adjusted life-year. Uncertainty associated with study bias was not reflected in the economic results. Patients and clinicians attending an end-of-project workshop were satisfied with the sequence of treatments for axillary hyperhidrosis identified as being cost-effective. All patient advisors considered that the Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index was superior to other tools commonly used in hyperhidrosis research for assessing quality of life. Limitations: The evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of second-line treatments for primary hyperhidrosis is limited. This meant that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions for most interventions assessed and the cost-effectiveness analysis was restricted to hyperhidrosis of the axilla. Future work: Based on anecdotal evidence and inference from evidence for the axillae, participants agreed that a trial of BTX (with anaesthesia) compared with iontophoresis for palmar hyperhidrosis would be most useful. The VOI analysis indicates that further research into the effectiveness of existing medications might be worthwhile, but it is unclear that such trials are of clinical importance. Research that established a robust estimate of the annual incidence of axillary hyperhidrosis in the UK population would reduce the uncertainty in future VOI analyses

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca